What is it about the Dalai Lama that enrages China so much?
Beijing's latest outburst against the Buddhist leader came during his visit to Australia. China did all it could before his visit to prevent the Dalai Lama from meeting Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd.
And it almost succeeded. But this is an election year in Australia and the Dalai Lama is loved and respected by many Australians. More than anything else, the fear of losing votes led Howard and Rudd to meet with the Tibetan leader.
Australia sought to limit Beijing's anger by describing the meetings with the Dalai Lama as religious in nature and without any political implications.
Gently rebuffing the Chinese pressure, Howard said: "As prime minister, I take the view I will decide who I will meet ? he is a figure in my view that I should meet."
But to reassure Beijing, he said: "It doesn't alter our foreign policy; it doesn't alter our relationship with China."
Describing the Dalai Lama "as a major world religious figure," Rudd said: "Our discussions centered on questions of religion and faith."
Canberra is generally mindful of Beijing's reaction in such situations, as trade relations between the nations have grown considerably. China is expected to soon overtake Japan as Australia's largest trading partner.
China has expanded trade relationships with Australia not to curry political favor, but as part of its ravenous search for mineral and energy imports. In short, Australia has what China needs and both sides know it.
Beijing knows that Canberra is not interested in Tibetan separatism, but China must continue ostracizing the Dalai Lama because he is the personification of Tibet.
Beijing seeks to ostracize Taiwan internationally in much the same way.
Moreover, for many years now the Dalai Lama has renounced separatism for Tibet. He reiterated this position while in Australia and said that he favored autonomy for Tibet within China, with Tibetans maintaining their cultural and spiritual identity.
In an interview on Australian television's Dateline program, he maintained that his advocacy of respect for Tibet's culture and spirituality was indeed in tune with Chinese President Hu Jintao's (
However, as things stand today, not only are Tibet's distinct cultural and religious traditions in danger of being obliterated, China also seems to be determined to wipe out Tibetan ethnic identity itself. The influx of the Han Chinese into Tibet and their control of all institutions and economic activity there are increasingly marginalizing Tibetans in their own land.
In the capital, Lhasa, for instance, Tibetans are said to now number only one-third of the population. And with the opening of the new rail line linking Tibet with China, more and more Han Chinese are pouring into Tibet, making life even harder for its original inhabitants.
The region is simply being overwhelmed by outsiders with nothing but contempt for Tibetans and their traditions.
When Tibetans show the least bit resistance to the multi-pronged Chinese onslaught, they risk spending the remainder of their lives in prison -- or worse.
Faced with such a bleak situation, it is not surprising that the Dalai Lama strives to prevent the marginalization of his people. He has come to realize over the years that Tibetan independence is not likely to happen, considering China's might and international clout.
Thus, the only feasible and practical solution under the circumstances is for Tibetans to maintain their cultural and spiritual identity as an autonomous region under China's control. Under this arrangement, the national government in Beijing would be responsible for foreign defense, currency and other central government functions.
On the face of it, this seems like a fairly sensible solution in which China would retain control while Tibet would maintain its regional and cultural identity.
But the series of talks over the years between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's representatives in this regard haven't gone anywhere. Basically, Beijing doesn't trust the Dalai Lama. It fears that his advocacy of autonomy for Tibet is really a call for separatism. It is afraid of Tibetans running Tibet instead of Han Chinese, and it wouldn't like such an arrangement to become a precedent for other minorities in China.
In addition, Beijing doesn't feel any urgency to resolve the issue. With China's expanding international economic and military clout, more and more governments feel obliged to take China's sensitivities into account where the Dalai Lama and Tibet are concerned.
Through its policy of making Han Chinese the dominant ethnic group in Tibet, Beijing hopes to put a permanent end to the Tibetan "issue." And things look promising for China in this regard. Therefore, Beijing doesn't feel any need to revive awareness of the issue when it might fade away in due course.
For Beijing, the ideal position for the Dalai Lama would be some sort of high-sounding figurehead status. In this Chinese fantasy, the Dalai Lama would confer legitimacy on China's Tibetan policies to speed up the Han Chinese takeover.
The Dalai Lama, however, refuses to take part in China's scheme at the cost of his homeland. But he is not going to live forever, and China can afford to wait him out.
With the Dalai Lama gone, Tibet might wither on the vine and, lo and behold, China would have permanently solved the problem.
That, at least, would seem to be the thinking of China's communist rulers.
Unfortunately for Beijing, this is too neat a solution. And for complex issues of national and cultural identity, neat solutions are hard to come by.
The Soviet Union discovered this the hard way when its empire collapsed and their erstwhile neat solution of resolving issues of nationality with strong central control was shattered as one republic after another broke away.
The conventional wisdom among China's rulers is that they have learned from the failed Soviet state and that they are thus safe from such catastrophes.
Weren't their counterparts in the Soviet Union also quite sure of themselves, until their house of cards collapsed from within?
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS